@sphires Photons are produced when an electron falls down from electron cloud level to a lower one, the resulting energy is in the form of photons exiting the atomic particle.
@pearsonlands When you say "falls" does that mean moving away from the nucleus to a wider shell or the other way? Also, what part of the experiment is causing this shift?
@Shatterwolf12 re: "The very fact that you have to shine light on an electron to observe it gives the electron energy, which changes the electron's location in space." What if light shines on the electron (it does) but is or is not observed (absorbed)? IONS offers a real double-slit apparatus one can observe (and apparently influence) through their web-based interface at "IONS Double-Slit Experiment."
@jabe55 Why bring God into this? Theological inferences unnecessarily complicate existing data. Beside, wouldn't that be admitting that science has caught up with and exposed the reality that God want's us to believe?
@PhilosoPheebs Well, yes! In a sense, it does... Nonetheless, that is precisely my point! Scientists religiously contradict themselves when they attempt to pompously, explain away the inception of the universe. By doing so, they ultimately discredit themselves in the process. Stephen Hawkin stated around 10 years ago how God sustains the order of the universe, now he contradicts himself stating that "God doesn't exist." A prime example for 'compromising one's credibility', isn't it?
@jabe55 What? If anything scientists have earned their credibility for researching, measuring, calculating, charting, dating, exploring and thus explaining the inception of the universe. As opposed to a person who (religiously) bases their entire explanation of the inception of the universe on a belief system that has gone through many different translations and even loss of data throughout history because it was either selectively edited or destroyed. Where's the logic in that?
@PhilosoPheebs You must be an atheist! Have you ever heard of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" which were found? They are the original manuscripts of many books of the bible and they were painstakingly compared and contrasted with the interpretation of current scriptures and were more similar than dissimilar in their overall natures.
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." --Albert Einstein
@jabe55 again, what does religion have to do with a scientific discussion? One is based on calculative data, and the other on poetic verse/scripture/unverifiable testimony.
SO, I could respect/understand your argument if we were having a theological discussion (in fact I have no doubt that you are well educated on that subject), the video and topic at hand however, is based on physics and the scientifically observed behavior of electrons. I don't think it constructive to mix topics.
@PhilosoPheebs For evidence pointing to the bible's validity as God's word and the probability of each fulfilled prophecy, please refer to the following link:
Scientists state that the universe continues to expand, yet the bible stated that fact more than 2,000 years ago. Case in point, Jeremiah 51:15 "He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and (stretches) out the heavens by his understanding."
@jabe55 a quoted bible verse isn't very helpful or comparable to a scientific discussion. Just because you can find the word "stretches" in a verse, doesn't really support it's validity as a comparison to a calculated explanation of our expanding universe.
@jabe55 there's a simple explanation for your quotes of renowned scientists using religious names and phrases: spirituality can exist, independent of religion. After all there are scientific studies on what happens to our brains/consciousness after death, the brain is complex after all we only use 10 percent and there is still much to learn about it.
The chemical reaction that occurs in our brains when experiencing a spiritual emotion might be a more rewarding explanation than a religious one.
@watermelonygoodness And you are very childish! Instead of resorting to ad hominem tactics, try refuting any the facts which I stated. If you cannot, then be mature and hold your peace! I know the truth so I don't have to be angry anymore. Have a nice day!
@jabe55 You didn't state any facts. You stated a lie: that scientists are "certain" god does not exist? I've never heard a scientist make that claim. Further, your implication that the strangeness of the behavior of matter on a quantum level somehow pertains in any way to the existence of god is 1. devoid of any fact and 2. as I stated before: pathetic!
@watermelonygoodness Do you actually research any of my claims? Listen to Stephen Hawkins of the order of the universe, he states how God sustains the order. 10 years later, he contradicts himself stating otherwise. Look it up! I can take you to the water, but I can't make you drink! What's pathetic is your skill in arguments.
@jabe55 Yes. The sentence: 'God does not exist' is necessarily a true statement in a scientific sense because science tries to explain the empirically observable universe and God is not empirically observable.
so hes trying to say that when particles are observed they are put onto a level of existence that follows parliamentary physics. But when we dont measure them they exist in every possible outcome or existence. So do the experiment blind and see what happens.
Knowing what we do about life (or what little we know); is it really so WILD a concept that perhaps electrons are in fact living/conscious organisms?
I'm not saying they're "GOD" or anything, I'm just suggesting that perhaps this whole time we've been studying what we currently know about physics; we've in fact just been observing the behavior of another living organism...
more thought on this brings me to ask; why (if this IS in fact behavior we're observing), would electrons even bother to correct it's behavior to what is considered "normal"? Why humor our current understanding of physics? If it's capable of behaving in more than one way, why not do so at all times?
On a lighter note (kinda); uh, are we in the Matrix?
Explanation is simple. Electrons are tiny packets of waves and large enough to pass both slits at the same time. Therefore it have dual particle-waves characteristic.
how do we know that the observer wasn't interfering with the photons? Im assuming it was a machine and maybe some frequencies would react with protons os they would coincidentally go through the two slits and prove the marble theory?
IT DOESN"T STOP THERE! Imagine that instead of observing which slit the electron will choose, place the observer on the other side to see which slit it CHOSE. The observation will cause the electron to behave as a particle and thus will be forced to choose a slit AFTER it already passed through it. This means that the past is altered in order to behave as a particle.
I think more reasonable explanation would be that universe is full of wave like particles which are smaller than electrons and still undetected, so even one electron can create interference pattern. Could do w/o superposition that way
Chaos by J. Gleick and The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene are the to books that best explain this experiment. Read them for yourself and don't let other people tell you how to think!
The experiment was slightly different than described, but the outcome is the same. when the first electron experiment was run, it was left to run without anyone in the room " observing " when they came back they see the interferance pattern.. then when they run it again while in the room " watching " the electrons behaved like marbles... tried it again, went out of the lab, came back, see interferance pattern... you get it..? the electrons are " conscious of being " watched" ...
Its very simple, electromagnetic waves are a result of the movement of electrons from one place to another. So if you shoot them, it creates an electromagnetic wave, which naturally has wave characteristics.
Depending on how they are observing the electron, it could be the method influences the electron.
This video is a little misleading. The video leads you to believe that the electron "knows" it is being watched, which is incorrect. The very fact that you have to shine light on an electron to observe it gives the electron energy, which changes the electron's location in space. This goes back to the Uncertainty Principle , which states the more you know about an electron's position, the less you know about its momentum, and vice versa.
@Shatterwolf12 True enough, but the important thing to remember about the Uncertainty Principle is that it is NOT a statement about experimental limitations but about the system (here the electron) itself. One of the postulates of Quantum Mechanics was that a measurement does collapse a wavefunction into one of its eigenstates, so in a sense, the electron does behave differently when it is being "watched". It is not simply a result of interacting with the photon you would you to observe it.
@Shatterwolf12 according the book the god's particle by Leon lederman, it is said that quarks are aware of each other and behave with an harmony in which they choose how to act as if they have a consciousness. and i also heard about the observers effect on electrons and quarks, meaning that they behave in the way you want to see them; in other words they are aware of being watched. i think thats an interesting ability those particles possess in their nature.
@Shatterwolf12 I thumbed you down for complete and utter ignorance. It amuses me how even with something as profound as the collapse of the wave function by mere observation, do people continue to sway from the underlying truth. That we know little to absolutely nothing about this Universe. Here's a saying: "Someone is always laughing. Always."
@Sentinith The only point I was trying to make in my post was that the video lead the viewer to believe that the electron had a conscious mind and was aware of when it was being "watched". You are correct, what happens in this scenario is that the wave function collapses and the electron follows one of its many possible paths.
Look up the quantum eraser experiment. It is essentially the double slit experiment, but altered so the electron is observed without any possible particle interference from photons/light.
So can you explain the results of the double-slit experiment more accurately?( I'm not a physicist so have never even heard of the uncertainty principle but I am interested in how physics seems to think it knows the truth about reality.
@Shatterwolf12 I think you're underestimating the nature of the observer in physics. The electron doesn't become a particle again because it's been given more energy. In fact i'm not sure why you said this considering you recommended to go read about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, which proves that it is in fact the observer (our conciousness) which causes the wave function to collapse
No electron can never be observed, it is extremely small and is never in an exact location. You are really confused about the fundamentals of general physics.
@MasteIsIllmatic What he means is, in order for our eye to observe light coming off the electron, light must first hit the electron and reflect back towards us. Thus the light has an effect on the electron.
@Shatterwolf12 Because the electrons and photons are so small many will pass through undetected and without interaction. Similar to how a quark can pass through the Earth without interaction. The ones that came in contact would do the unexpected while the ones that didn't would do the expected outcome and there would be a blending of the two. But that's not what happened. They all did the unexpected. They also used other detectors. Read about Wheeler or the quantum eraser.
@Shatterwolf12 I'm not trying to argue, I just have a question. You seem to know a lot about this I assume. Isn't light always hitting the electrons whether we observe it or not? I'm not smart, so I'm trying to get this to where I get whats going on. I'm so confused, I thought light waves were made of electrons. I need to rethink all of this :(
@Shatterwolf12 No. This video isn't trying to tell you that the electron's no they're being watched. It has nothing to do with light on the electron when it's being observed. This video is just showing that thing's that shouldn't happen can happen when they're is no one watching. Here is a little example. Your in your house a lone. you're facing your TV. Whose to say that whats behind you didn't disappear and when you turn around to look that it reappeared, before you could tell. ucant
@teaspooon1@teaspooon1 I think what shatterwolf12 meant was that this video is biased (it's taken from a movie that assumes our neurological processes exhibit this quantum behavior. It's a terrible movie that is not supported by real science) And while this video doesn't talk about a collapse of the wave function caused by the measurement/observation , it doesn't mean this isn't what happens. As far as your example goes, it's wrong. Strange quantum behavior applies to small scales.
@Shatterwolf12 If you have a answer that proves that example wrong then tell me. Because there is no way to prove it what's so ever. Another example. In the middle of the desert where nobody is a rock shoot's up into space. It goes against physics but that doesn't mean it's wrong. They're is no way to say it didn't. You can't say it does do that, but you can't say it didn't because no one saw. I hope you understand what i'm saying. You may not though.
@teaspooon1 Actualy u can prove it wrong very easy, put a device that leaves marks on your object for example every second, then just dont look at it. After that look and ull see ur object marked thus proving it was there all time.
@teaspooon1 no i think it means that the rock dosent exist wile you not looking at it but it disides itself to exist becouse you look at it, wich is far more strange. so before you were looking at there was infiate posiblitys for it but wen you observe it it has to follow the rules of physics. :(
@Shatterwolf12 I don't think they were shining a light on it in order to observe it, that seems silly since they were shooting photons, it seems like they would be smart enough not to throw off the experiment like that. I do think this video is misleading in some ways, but the experiment itself did come with the conclusion that when you observe photons they behave differently.
@QueenofAntarctica In order to observe the electrons you have to shine a light on it. In order to see something a photon (light) particle must first hit the object you are observing and then it bounces into you eye and that's when you actually see it. Their measuring device probably had a photon bounce off the electron in order to detect it's position. This changed the path of the electron because the photon had momentum. Our eye couldn't see just one photon though.Pretty sure
@QueenofAntarctica You can't tell where something is without bouncing a photon off of it. But each photon has momentum, observing imparts a momentum, changing the interference pattern. But the trouble is not using a high momentum photon, the problem is when it bounces off the electron and comes back to you, it diffracts and the momentum will have changed by an amount that you can not predict.
Wow, your such an idiot, this video is extremely simplified and concepts used show how this experiment was made so everyone will understand it. Do you actually think they put an eye ball or a camera to see a single electron????Do you know how impossible that is??
They used an extremely small sensitive coil, so when the electron passed near it, it would induce a tiny electric current. Therefore, detecting the electron in an indirect way.
@Shatterwolf12 Yeah seriously, if you understand this experiment fully it is WAY more crazy than this makes it sound. It's like the future changes the past somehow.
So the quantum universe is simply the "realm of possibility" where literally all things and possibilities happen at once. We see the reaction of one particular thing happening based on factors/causes and reactions to cause it to happen. That doesn't make it so that we cause the reaction though, as we didn't physically see this and our math can be wrong. However, if this is all on a subatomic level only then it is possible and we only observe what we think we should observe based on what we know.
The "measuring device" is usually putting something, like a photon or an atom, in one of the slits. If the atom placed in the slit is disturbed, then the scientists know that the electron went through there.
You can see, though, that that's exactly why the interference pattern vanishes. Not because we 'know' where the electron went - but because the electron interacted with something.
@CaramellLuvr247 i got shown this as an introduction to quatum physics at A level, in the same lesson we were made to work out our own de broglie wavelength while travelling at 1m/s, i mean even the basics of quantum physics makes my head hurt >.<... why can't things just be simple? :P
@pankrazspancreas Lol I feel the same sometimes. I think it would be simple if you already know all the components and mathematics one tends to work with in problems like this, and if you have an aptitude for that type of thinking, ergo, you understand the concepts in your own way and understand how others explain it and any more knowledge you learn/hear/see about it. Not everyone learns the same way, so some people have a harder time with it.
I think the very first consiousness in the universe, was God. Think about it! In order for something to behave as particles instead of a wave, it must be OBSERVED. Thus, when the universe came to be, something MUST have observed it. I think this was the big bang. Before the big bang the universe was just endless possibilities, until something observed it and it became ONE outcome which is the universe we are living in right now. Just my theory :P
This is brilliant! I have been reading and listening to random discussions about the mystery and still perplexed, this clip just sum up everything in five minutes!
@Mrmantisman1 you can try the experiment yourself. And what the hell does the Bible have to do with this? The Bible didn't mention the fact that the Earth orbited the sun - in fact the Church opposed this for multiple decades - and yet this is a widely known fact... please step out of the overzealous box.
@controlaltdelete121 well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I'd challenge you to present one shred of non-bias evidence to suggest that the sun doesn't, in fact, orbit the earth. I know what we were all taught in school. But how can we know for sure? We certainly cannot observe this so called fact ourselves. I'm no conspiracy theorist, I just take the bible as the one and only word. With so much misinformation out there, I find it foolish and rather naive to do otherwise
@yupyup181818 Because when you "observe" something you have to interact with it. Therefore you affect the result at an atomic level by any act of "touching" it. Even if that is with a single photon of light. The same way you cannot feel something without touching it. Also every atomic particle like an Electron attempts every possibility simultaneously which is very crazy. By "touching" or Observing it you are forcing it to chose a single path rather than all paths.
@yupyup181818 Although there are a few physicists, one who was famous, who believe even conscious observing by an intelligent being creates change. That poses many problems though. This is the Copenhagen type interpretation.
I think my first guess what happens was wrong, my second is that the electron goes to the vaccum an comes back as it moves through space. Therefore there is charge then there is no charge then there is charge, then there is no charge an so on (this charge creates an alternating electric field). Because there is also a magnetic field when the electron moves. Its quite similar to an electromagnetic wave but not exactly the same.
@pinkybrain6 This does not make sense. You're saying the deflection is caused by the magnetic field surrounding the electron? First, if there was any deflection due to the magnetic field it would likely be random and thus, although there would be deflection, it wouldn't emerge as a perfect interference pattern. The interference pattern is caused by the interference of the wavefunction that describes the electron's probability distribution in position space.
Ok here is what i think what is happening, -> When the electron flows through air or vacuum it creates a magnetic field around it, exactly the same way as when the electron flows through a conducting wire it creates a magnetic field circular arround the wire. In a wire the magnetic field will collapse if you remove the voltage who drives the electrons. the remaining electrons in the wire will collapse the field.
so what this is saying is that reality is ordered by the viewer so dose this prove we are living in a simulation that the pc that we reside in is stoping us seeing the wave so we keep thinking it is real and not a simulation or is our subconcios mind changing reality it self or what ????? that was a question not a statment
The content of THIS video may be fine (I don't know), but keep in mind that it's from a movie made by students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, run by a woman who claims to be CHANNELING THE 35,000 YEAR OLD WARRIOR GOD RAMTHA.
I fucking hate when new agers use this experiment to prove whatever super natural claim they propose. Its very well possible that we will find an explanation to this one day, but until then we shouldn't resort to the "god of the gaps" thing over again. When we come to an unknown, the only honest conclusion is "I dont know yet".
Ugh. It was not "aware it was being watched", this is nonsense. It acted that way during observation because of something called Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle - you can Google that if you don't know what it means.
@Task5003 They said "as thought it knew it was being watched" not suggesting it actually knew it was being watched and there is where this principle steps into play.
@MinecraftingDaddio Still, it's misleading. Especially to laymen. At no stage do they explain the uncertainty principle; the reason why the electron behaved differently.
This is the only piece of information in "What The Bleep Do We Know!?: Down The Rabbit Hole" that isn't complete bullshit. Although I would like them to stress that 'observing' has nothing to do with looking at it, it means interacting with in any way by anything.
Doesn't "observing" an electron simply "consume" it? I mean the very fact that the measuring device records a blip is because the electron went into it, bumped onto a ccd or whatever to signal its presence. If it went into the ccd it didn't go past the slit. No mystery.
@Mick0722MX Ah, but is not "reliability" a subjective denomination?
And I do not claim based on these experiments, by the way, that subjectivity is inherently human or animal. It may be a property of any sufficiently organized system.
@Janotheknight "Ah, but is not "reliability" a subjective denomination?"
I don't think so. Shine a light on a banana, we will perceive yellow subjectively, however, the light reflecting from the molecules of the banana are an objective wavelength.
The electron (also photons) travels along helical path (spiring-like) not straight line producing a 3D WAVE . Depending on the extact phase shift when the 3D wave enters either of the slids, it gets defracted at different angles thus producing the multi-bands (even if one at a time).
To prove Helical 3D Waves [heliwaveCOM] we should find if the middle band in the single slit exp is not brighter than the central band in the double slit exp. The single slit defracting too but no interference.
@RaiBok But they actually put polarizer filters in the slits so there was no way they could interfere with the electrons before they hit the slits. But there is truth in what you say because mere act of observing actually interferes with superpositioning which means electrons being in BOTH of the slits and forces it to make a choice (i know this is not the appropriate verb though :). In one of the interpretations of this events it is proposed that two superpositioned waves collapse into one.
@009SoundVEVO Yeah, it goes on to say something in the lines of "you're the observer, so basically you can affect quantum processes, so you can be God and change the laws of physics IF YOU ONLY BELIEVE! YOU'VE GOT TO BELIEVE!"
for the love of satan anyone who likes physics do NOT buy into this bullshit interpretation. this entire documentary is riddled with flaws and totally erroneous.
@GiantDoucheNG Hell my dear sir, physics is all about finding the new, discovering possibilities and making ten questions from one answer. As your name suggests you are just a Giantdouche. No you know anything about physics. Its rules are made to be broken. And the 'flaws', I dare you to figure them out. Go on. Im sure some one with the knowledge of a bicycle pump could 'easily' challenge people with degrees that spend the life working on these projects. Finally, how dare you call this bullshit.
@TheMimileigh Wow. There appears to be a complete miscommunication here. Unless you're honestly trying to troll me I have no alternative other than to conclude you are either severely misinformed in this field or just idiotic. This is not what the double slit experiment means. The observer effect simply means that in the process of collecting information about electron spin and position the actual method of observation effects the data. You don't change particles by looking at them
@TheMimileigh Also this documentary is notable for being HEAVILY sensationalized. If you are interested, find this movie's Wikipedia article and read the subheading "Academic reaction." Richard Dawkins and James Randi agreed that it was "tosh" and a "fantasy docudrama." This is absolutely bullshit and a complete slap in the face to theoretical physicists.
@GiantDoucheNG I believe that it is saying that the observer greatly changes the outcome and that particles are not just existant, they are aware of there surroundings. Electrons are sentient beings.
Stop watching me, you electron creepers.
arghydoodles 31 minutes ago
i was about to post the same thing and then saw that
bigboom963 1 hour ago
not to be a thumb whore but upvote forrestgump1987's comment because there is actually legitimate reason for it to be at the top
bigboom963 1 hour ago
This show is produced by a cult that believes a 35000 year old atlantean is channeling its leader. seriously.
look it up. don't take this mystical bullshit as real science.
forrestgump1987 3 hours ago 4
Why does he keep saying electrons? Aren't light particles photons, or does the actual experiment use electrons?
sphires 15 hours ago
@sphires Photons are produced when an electron falls down from electron cloud level to a lower one, the resulting energy is in the form of photons exiting the atomic particle.
pearsonlands 6 hours ago
@pearsonlands When you say "falls" does that mean moving away from the nucleus to a wider shell or the other way? Also, what part of the experiment is causing this shift?
sphires 2 hours ago
IT WAS GOD!
*Dramatic Music*
jgkeys1995 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My head hurts now.
napalmnacey 1 day ago
what?
DeadManWalking669 2 days ago
"But the quantum world is far more mysterious than they could have imagined!"
"But the quantum world gave you the middle finger and continued fucking your mother and your grand mother /at the same time!/"
superduperdurkadurk 3 days ago
OMFG THIS MAKES NO SENSE!! =D
gobipill 4 days ago
@xyroclast what movie is it from? Not what the bleep do we know is it??
cjb8824 5 days ago
Comment removed
cjb8824 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ 2:20 "WHAT!? AN INTERFERENCE PATTERN!?!"
S3cretService 5 days ago
Comment removed
S3cretService 5 days ago
I have a solid postulate that answers this experiment. watch "Quantum Philosophy Workshop"
williamahumphrey 6 days ago
@williamahumphrey
ಠ_ಠ
superduperdurkadurk 3 days ago
what propaganda filth
sydissydable 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shatterwolf12 re: "The very fact that you have to shine light on an electron to observe it gives the electron energy, which changes the electron's location in space." What if light shines on the electron (it does) but is or is not observed (absorbed)? IONS offers a real double-slit apparatus one can observe (and apparently influence) through their web-based interface at "IONS Double-Slit Experiment."
squirrelbike 1 week ago
id put my dick through those slits
shaveddave 1 week ago
Yet scientists are still "certain" that God doesn't exist, right?
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 Why bring God into this? Theological inferences unnecessarily complicate existing data. Beside, wouldn't that be admitting that science has caught up with and exposed the reality that God want's us to believe?
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
@PhilosoPheebs Well, yes! In a sense, it does... Nonetheless, that is precisely my point! Scientists religiously contradict themselves when they attempt to pompously, explain away the inception of the universe. By doing so, they ultimately discredit themselves in the process. Stephen Hawkin stated around 10 years ago how God sustains the order of the universe, now he contradicts himself stating that "God doesn't exist." A prime example for 'compromising one's credibility', isn't it?
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 What? If anything scientists have earned their credibility for researching, measuring, calculating, charting, dating, exploring and thus explaining the inception of the universe. As opposed to a person who (religiously) bases their entire explanation of the inception of the universe on a belief system that has gone through many different translations and even loss of data throughout history because it was either selectively edited or destroyed. Where's the logic in that?
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
@PhilosoPheebs You must be an atheist! Have you ever heard of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" which were found? They are the original manuscripts of many books of the bible and they were painstakingly compared and contrasted with the interpretation of current scriptures and were more similar than dissimilar in their overall natures.
"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." --Albert Einstein
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 again, what does religion have to do with a scientific discussion? One is based on calculative data, and the other on poetic verse/scripture/unverifiable testimony.
SO, I could respect/understand your argument if we were having a theological discussion (in fact I have no doubt that you are well educated on that subject), the video and topic at hand however, is based on physics and the scientifically observed behavior of electrons. I don't think it constructive to mix topics.
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
@PhilosoPheebs For evidence pointing to the bible's validity as God's word and the probability of each fulfilled prophecy, please refer to the following link:
wwwdotreasonsdotorg/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible
Scientists state that the universe continues to expand, yet the bible stated that fact more than 2,000 years ago. Case in point, Jeremiah 51:15 "He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and (stretches) out the heavens by his understanding."
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 a quoted bible verse isn't very helpful or comparable to a scientific discussion. Just because you can find the word "stretches" in a verse, doesn't really support it's validity as a comparison to a calculated explanation of our expanding universe.
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
@jabe55 there's a simple explanation for your quotes of renowned scientists using religious names and phrases: spirituality can exist, independent of religion. After all there are scientific studies on what happens to our brains/consciousness after death, the brain is complex after all we only use 10 percent and there is still much to learn about it.
The chemical reaction that occurs in our brains when experiencing a spiritual emotion might be a more rewarding explanation than a religious one.
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
@jabe55 You are so pathetic!
watermelonygoodness 1 week ago
@watermelonygoodness And you are very childish! Instead of resorting to ad hominem tactics, try refuting any the facts which I stated. If you cannot, then be mature and hold your peace! I know the truth so I don't have to be angry anymore. Have a nice day!
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 You didn't state any facts. You stated a lie: that scientists are "certain" god does not exist? I've never heard a scientist make that claim. Further, your implication that the strangeness of the behavior of matter on a quantum level somehow pertains in any way to the existence of god is 1. devoid of any fact and 2. as I stated before: pathetic!
watermelonygoodness 1 week ago
@watermelonygoodness Do you actually research any of my claims? Listen to Stephen Hawkins of the order of the universe, he states how God sustains the order. 10 years later, he contradicts himself stating otherwise. Look it up! I can take you to the water, but I can't make you drink! What's pathetic is your skill in arguments.
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 yur siiiilly
FACEJJ 1 week ago
@FACEJJ If you can disprove my claims then I will admit being silly.
jabe55 1 week ago
@jabe55 Yes, they are bogus.
watermelonygoodness 1 week ago
@jabe55 Yes. The sentence: 'God does not exist' is necessarily a true statement in a scientific sense because science tries to explain the empirically observable universe and God is not empirically observable.
Sh1n0kk 1 week ago
so hes trying to say that when particles are observed they are put onto a level of existence that follows parliamentary physics. But when we dont measure them they exist in every possible outcome or existence. So do the experiment blind and see what happens.
TheTaben 1 week ago
da fuuuucck
TommyW222 1 week ago
infinite possibilities .... :)
Rozy2987 1 week ago
Knowing what we do about life (or what little we know); is it really so WILD a concept that perhaps electrons are in fact living/conscious organisms?
I'm not saying they're "GOD" or anything, I'm just suggesting that perhaps this whole time we've been studying what we currently know about physics; we've in fact just been observing the behavior of another living organism...
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
Comment removed
occocooccoco 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhilosoPheebs that's an idea shared and accepted by not only you and even evolves to an idea of the collective consciousness
occocooccoco 1 week ago
more thought on this brings me to ask; why (if this IS in fact behavior we're observing), would electrons even bother to correct it's behavior to what is considered "normal"? Why humor our current understanding of physics? If it's capable of behaving in more than one way, why not do so at all times?
On a lighter note (kinda); uh, are we in the Matrix?
^_~
PhilosoPheebs 1 week ago
Cracked
ideoteqa 1 week ago
Also, after you understand this, look up "Wheeler's delayed choice experiment". It makes things even crazier somehow.
thegmanyo 1 week ago
Awesome but what?
rmtglass1 1 week ago
Stunning
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! לא יאמן לא רק שהחומר קיים במצב סופרפוזיציה עצם הצפייה בניסוי מבטלת מצב זה! אחחח אני חולה על המדע המודרני
MrDoronfx 1 week ago
Explanation is simple. Electrons are tiny packets of waves and large enough to pass both slits at the same time. Therefore it have dual particle-waves characteristic.
Marceli528 1 week ago
@Marceli528 That still doesn't explain why it changes when it's being observed.
thegmanyo 1 week ago
how do we know that the observer wasn't interfering with the photons? Im assuming it was a machine and maybe some frequencies would react with protons os they would coincidentally go through the two slits and prove the marble theory?
blzrk123 1 week ago
IT DOESN"T STOP THERE! Imagine that instead of observing which slit the electron will choose, place the observer on the other side to see which slit it CHOSE. The observation will cause the electron to behave as a particle and thus will be forced to choose a slit AFTER it already passed through it. This means that the past is altered in order to behave as a particle.
ChuckleKing 1 week ago
the visualisation of this is awesome, thanks
Ipikop 2 weeks ago
They shoud put 2 light sources each in one slit, then shoot one electron. Any predictions on result?:D
gaachLV 2 weeks ago
I think more reasonable explanation would be that universe is full of wave like particles which are smaller than electrons and still undetected, so even one electron can create interference pattern. Could do w/o superposition that way
gaachLV 2 weeks ago
@gaachLV it's called the super string theory
lmWatchingVideos 2 weeks ago
Watching this after I was told to in Physics class.
Brain: ded.
Ultrapyre 2 weeks ago
An Interference Pattern!
bros92496231 2 weeks ago 16
i wondered how they know they were same electrons which they sent?
esraretin 2 weeks ago
What is matter whichu?
jordantyler36 2 weeks ago
Chaos by J. Gleick and The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene are the to books that best explain this experiment. Read them for yourself and don't let other people tell you how to think!
~Love, and do what thou Will~
rdrenton 2 weeks ago
watch?v=l1K2DMm8M4o
this song is about Higgs! you gotta hear this!
the first quantum physics song!!!
TheQuantumBand 2 weeks ago
The experiment was slightly different than described, but the outcome is the same. when the first electron experiment was run, it was left to run without anyone in the room " observing " when they came back they see the interferance pattern.. then when they run it again while in the room " watching " the electrons behaved like marbles... tried it again, went out of the lab, came back, see interferance pattern... you get it..? the electrons are " conscious of being " watched" ...
garyw1971 2 weeks ago
My chem teacher is making me watch this.
Jojoateyt 2 weeks ago
I wonder if Dr. Quantum gets laid a lot, he is bound to get a lot of female attention with that spandex costume and cape.
jorbjorbanks 3 weeks ago
Its very simple, electromagnetic waves are a result of the movement of electrons from one place to another. So if you shoot them, it creates an electromagnetic wave, which naturally has wave characteristics.
Depending on how they are observing the electron, it could be the method influences the electron.
Michel0555 3 weeks ago
This video is a little misleading. The video leads you to believe that the electron "knows" it is being watched, which is incorrect. The very fact that you have to shine light on an electron to observe it gives the electron energy, which changes the electron's location in space. This goes back to the Uncertainty Principle , which states the more you know about an electron's position, the less you know about its momentum, and vice versa.
Shatterwolf12 3 weeks ago 57
@Shatterwolf12 True enough, but the important thing to remember about the Uncertainty Principle is that it is NOT a statement about experimental limitations but about the system (here the electron) itself. One of the postulates of Quantum Mechanics was that a measurement does collapse a wavefunction into one of its eigenstates, so in a sense, the electron does behave differently when it is being "watched". It is not simply a result of interacting with the photon you would you to observe it.
alexhcdw 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 according the book the god's particle by Leon lederman, it is said that quarks are aware of each other and behave with an harmony in which they choose how to act as if they have a consciousness. and i also heard about the observers effect on electrons and quarks, meaning that they behave in the way you want to see them; in other words they are aware of being watched. i think thats an interesting ability those particles possess in their nature.
princepyrrhon 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 I thumbed you down for complete and utter ignorance. It amuses me how even with something as profound as the collapse of the wave function by mere observation, do people continue to sway from the underlying truth. That we know little to absolutely nothing about this Universe. Here's a saying: "Someone is always laughing. Always."
Sentinith 3 weeks ago
@Sentinith The only point I was trying to make in my post was that the video lead the viewer to believe that the electron had a conscious mind and was aware of when it was being "watched". You are correct, what happens in this scenario is that the wave function collapses and the electron follows one of its many possible paths.
Shatterwolf12 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12
Look up the quantum eraser experiment. It is essentially the double slit experiment, but altered so the electron is observed without any possible particle interference from photons/light.
MrDanielPida 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12
So can you explain the results of the double-slit experiment more accurately?( I'm not a physicist so have never even heard of the uncertainty principle but I am interested in how physics seems to think it knows the truth about reality.
elainethepotterful 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 but, wouldnt they observe both slits, ie both sides have the same amount of light enter, as to not interfere with the final outcome?
johnnoausify 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 I think you're underestimating the nature of the observer in physics. The electron doesn't become a particle again because it's been given more energy. In fact i'm not sure why you said this considering you recommended to go read about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, which proves that it is in fact the observer (our conciousness) which causes the wave function to collapse
fc2g08 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 Why do you have to shine light on it to observe it? Don't electrons emit observable energy as it is?
xyroclast 3 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12
No electron can never be observed, it is extremely small and is never in an exact location. You are really confused about the fundamentals of general physics.
Edge123455 2 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 That makes sense, But doesnt light come from the outside world and into our eye not vice versa
MasteIsIllmatic 2 weeks ago
@MasteIsIllmatic What he means is, in order for our eye to observe light coming off the electron, light must first hit the electron and reflect back towards us. Thus the light has an effect on the electron.
AngryScissor 2 weeks ago
@MasteIsIllmatic word, thanks god
MasteIsIllmatic 2 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 Because the electrons and photons are so small many will pass through undetected and without interaction. Similar to how a quark can pass through the Earth without interaction. The ones that came in contact would do the unexpected while the ones that didn't would do the expected outcome and there would be a blending of the two. But that's not what happened. They all did the unexpected. They also used other detectors. Read about Wheeler or the quantum eraser.
Dereks06 2 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 I'm not trying to argue, I just have a question. You seem to know a lot about this I assume. Isn't light always hitting the electrons whether we observe it or not? I'm not smart, so I'm trying to get this to where I get whats going on. I'm so confused, I thought light waves were made of electrons. I need to rethink all of this :(
DannyTheFluff 2 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 No. This video isn't trying to tell you that the electron's no they're being watched. It has nothing to do with light on the electron when it's being observed. This video is just showing that thing's that shouldn't happen can happen when they're is no one watching. Here is a little example. Your in your house a lone. you're facing your TV. Whose to say that whats behind you didn't disappear and when you turn around to look that it reappeared, before you could tell. ucant
teaspooon1 2 weeks ago
@teaspooon1 @teaspooon1 I think what shatterwolf12 meant was that this video is biased (it's taken from a movie that assumes our neurological processes exhibit this quantum behavior. It's a terrible movie that is not supported by real science) And while this video doesn't talk about a collapse of the wave function caused by the measurement/observation , it doesn't mean this isn't what happens. As far as your example goes, it's wrong. Strange quantum behavior applies to small scales.
CassidyzBoo 2 days ago
@Shatterwolf12 If you have a answer that proves that example wrong then tell me. Because there is no way to prove it what's so ever. Another example. In the middle of the desert where nobody is a rock shoot's up into space. It goes against physics but that doesn't mean it's wrong. They're is no way to say it didn't. You can't say it does do that, but you can't say it didn't because no one saw. I hope you understand what i'm saying. You may not though.
teaspooon1 2 weeks ago
@teaspooon1 Actualy u can prove it wrong very easy, put a device that leaves marks on your object for example every second, then just dont look at it. After that look and ull see ur object marked thus proving it was there all time.
gaachLV 2 weeks ago
@teaspooon1 no i think it means that the rock dosent exist wile you not looking at it but it disides itself to exist becouse you look at it, wich is far more strange. so before you were looking at there was infiate posiblitys for it but wen you observe it it has to follow the rules of physics. :(
talkingskulls 2 weeks ago
@Shatterwolf12 I don't think they were shining a light on it in order to observe it, that seems silly since they were shooting photons, it seems like they would be smart enough not to throw off the experiment like that. I do think this video is misleading in some ways, but the experiment itself did come with the conclusion that when you observe photons they behave differently.
QueenofAntarctica 2 weeks ago 4
@QueenofAntarctica
They were observing electrons.
Shatterwolf12 1 week ago
@QueenofAntarctica In order to observe the electrons you have to shine a light on it. In order to see something a photon (light) particle must first hit the object you are observing and then it bounces into you eye and that's when you actually see it. Their measuring device probably had a photon bounce off the electron in order to detect it's position. This changed the path of the electron because the photon had momentum. Our eye couldn't see just one photon though.Pretty sure
savingcrabsaround123 1 week ago
@QueenofAntarctica You can't tell where something is without bouncing a photon off of it. But each photon has momentum, observing imparts a momentum, changing the interference pattern. But the trouble is not using a high momentum photon, the problem is when it bounces off the electron and comes back to you, it diffracts and the momentum will have changed by an amount that you can not predict.
TheDgoodfellow 4 minutes ago
Comment removed
Edge123455 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shatterwolf12
Wow, your such an idiot, this video is extremely simplified and concepts used show how this experiment was made so everyone will understand it. Do you actually think they put an eye ball or a camera to see a single electron????Do you know how impossible that is??
They used an extremely small sensitive coil, so when the electron passed near it, it would induce a tiny electric current. Therefore, detecting the electron in an indirect way.
Edge123455 1 week ago
@Shatterwolf12 Yeah seriously, if you understand this experiment fully it is WAY more crazy than this makes it sound. It's like the future changes the past somehow.
thegmanyo 1 week ago
@Shatterwolf12 that may be but this vid is only trying to explain it to people. By considering the uncertainty principle it complicates it even more
thomspeak 1 week ago
So the quantum universe is simply the "realm of possibility" where literally all things and possibilities happen at once. We see the reaction of one particular thing happening based on factors/causes and reactions to cause it to happen. That doesn't make it so that we cause the reaction though, as we didn't physically see this and our math can be wrong. However, if this is all on a subatomic level only then it is possible and we only observe what we think we should observe based on what we know.
z90OoAluYsioNoO09z 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
iaminfact 3 weeks ago
I read 3 comments.I feel so dumb.
CallofDutyFan85 3 weeks ago 31
Does anyone know the measuring device used to tell which slit the electron went through?
also does anyone know what real world device the "Electron Master" gun is?
dmcIVdmc 3 weeks ago
@dmcIVdmc
The "measuring device" is usually putting something, like a photon or an atom, in one of the slits. If the atom placed in the slit is disturbed, then the scientists know that the electron went through there.
You can see, though, that that's exactly why the interference pattern vanishes. Not because we 'know' where the electron went - but because the electron interacted with something.
taicleis 3 weeks ago
I'm never going to be able to function as a normal human being ever again.
CaramellLuvr247 3 weeks ago
@CaramellLuvr247 i got shown this as an introduction to quatum physics at A level, in the same lesson we were made to work out our own de broglie wavelength while travelling at 1m/s, i mean even the basics of quantum physics makes my head hurt >.<... why can't things just be simple? :P
pankrazspancreas 3 weeks ago
@pankrazspancreas Lol I feel the same sometimes. I think it would be simple if you already know all the components and mathematics one tends to work with in problems like this, and if you have an aptitude for that type of thinking, ergo, you understand the concepts in your own way and understand how others explain it and any more knowledge you learn/hear/see about it. Not everyone learns the same way, so some people have a harder time with it.
z90OoAluYsioNoO09z 3 weeks ago
What does this mean for Objectivist epistemology?
marce11o 3 weeks ago
Look into the work of Thomas Campbell. He explains this beautifully. Consciousness is the only key element.
joemoe23 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the very first consiousness in the universe, was God. Think about it! In order for something to behave as particles instead of a wave, it must be OBSERVED. Thus, when the universe came to be, something MUST have observed it. I think this was the big bang. Before the big bang the universe was just endless possibilities, until something observed it and it became ONE outcome which is the universe we are living in right now. Just my theory :P
But it sounds very logical to me.
krentenbol343 3 weeks ago
I had to grab a piece of paper and conduct the experiment myself to be convinced. Mind= blown after.
whatthemeh 3 weeks ago
This is brilliant! I have been reading and listening to random discussions about the mystery and still perplexed, this clip just sum up everything in five minutes!
lov2us 4 weeks ago
it's god taking the piss, now chill out!!
MrWhittak 4 weeks ago
hahahahaha I just came here because of Hank aaand realized we watched this in our physics class XD How awesome!
Sleepover137 4 weeks ago
@Mrmantisman1 you can try the experiment yourself. And what the hell does the Bible have to do with this? The Bible didn't mention the fact that the Earth orbited the sun - in fact the Church opposed this for multiple decades - and yet this is a widely known fact... please step out of the overzealous box.
controlaltdelete121 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Mrmantisman1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@controlaltdelete121 well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I'd challenge you to present one shred of non-bias evidence to suggest that the sun doesn't, in fact, orbit the earth. I know what we were all taught in school. But how can we know for sure? We certainly cannot observe this so called fact ourselves. I'm no conspiracy theorist, I just take the bible as the one and only word. With so much misinformation out there, I find it foolish and rather naive to do otherwise
Mrmantisman1 4 weeks ago
I'm sorry but this is BS, nowhere in the bible is quantum mechanics mentioned. this is hocus pocus.
Mrmantisman1 4 weeks ago
@Mrmantisman1 haha now thats funny
keithrose4227 4 weeks ago
the BIBLE is hocus pocus.
flippyflappyflo 4 weeks ago
what the i don't even know
eifersucht 4 weeks ago
my brain hurts
coolio5400 1 month ago
This is interesting. :o
xintegratedx 1 month ago
I still don't understand that..how just observing something can change the outcome >_<
yupyup181818 1 month ago
@yupyup181818 Because when you "observe" something you have to interact with it. Therefore you affect the result at an atomic level by any act of "touching" it. Even if that is with a single photon of light. The same way you cannot feel something without touching it. Also every atomic particle like an Electron attempts every possibility simultaneously which is very crazy. By "touching" or Observing it you are forcing it to chose a single path rather than all paths.
ojideagu 1 month ago
@ojideagu Ahhhhh,I understand,thank you for clearing that up for me,it was driving me crazy.^^
yupyup181818 4 weeks ago
@yupyup181818 Although there are a few physicists, one who was famous, who believe even conscious observing by an intelligent being creates change. That poses many problems though. This is the Copenhagen type interpretation.
ojideagu 3 weeks ago
I love Dr. Quantum. It completely feels like my old Grandpa explaining a lot of complicated shit in a simple, comprehensible way.
enahhhhh 1 month ago
Reminds me of a Superhero Tom Hanks.
LysanderKor 1 month ago
good job it's soo good carry on DR quantum
o4ousaf 1 month ago
I just love physics
CodeStain 1 month ago
Thats why i love physics
Itachi21x 1 month ago
i felt enlightened for a second @1:20
orionmaxfield 1 month ago
Comment removed
DombieNator 1 month ago
I think my first guess what happens was wrong, my second is that the electron goes to the vaccum an comes back as it moves through space. Therefore there is charge then there is no charge then there is charge, then there is no charge an so on (this charge creates an alternating electric field). Because there is also a magnetic field when the electron moves. Its quite similar to an electromagnetic wave but not exactly the same.
pinkybrain6 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinkybrain6 This does not make sense. You're saying the deflection is caused by the magnetic field surrounding the electron? First, if there was any deflection due to the magnetic field it would likely be random and thus, although there would be deflection, it wouldn't emerge as a perfect interference pattern. The interference pattern is caused by the interference of the wavefunction that describes the electron's probability distribution in position space.
thefutureispeace 1 month ago
Comment removed
thefutureispeace 1 month ago
mother fucking god damn cunt shit cock fuck
my head
lynxZenfold 1 month ago
pleasse read the "Ok here is what i think comment first"
pinkybrain6 1 month ago
Ok here is what i think what is happening, -> When the electron flows through air or vacuum it creates a magnetic field around it, exactly the same way as when the electron flows through a conducting wire it creates a magnetic field circular arround the wire. In a wire the magnetic field will collapse if you remove the voltage who drives the electrons. the remaining electrons in the wire will collapse the field.
pinkybrain6 1 month ago
so what this is saying is that reality is ordered by the viewer so dose this prove we are living in a simulation that the pc that we reside in is stoping us seeing the wave so we keep thinking it is real and not a simulation or is our subconcios mind changing reality it self or what ????? that was a question not a statment
MrYendor1968 1 month ago
Drunk Tank!
TheDeadLobster 1 month ago
The content of THIS video may be fine (I don't know), but keep in mind that it's from a movie made by students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, run by a woman who claims to be CHANNELING THE 35,000 YEAR OLD WARRIOR GOD RAMTHA.
Daruqe 1 month ago
I fucking hate when new agers use this experiment to prove whatever super natural claim they propose. Its very well possible that we will find an explanation to this one day, but until then we shouldn't resort to the "god of the gaps" thing over again. When we come to an unknown, the only honest conclusion is "I dont know yet".
jbulletc 1 month ago
Ugh. It was not "aware it was being watched", this is nonsense. It acted that way during observation because of something called Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle - you can Google that if you don't know what it means.
Task5003 1 month ago
@Task5003 They said "as thought it knew it was being watched" not suggesting it actually knew it was being watched and there is where this principle steps into play.
MinecraftingDaddio 1 month ago
@MinecraftingDaddio Still, it's misleading. Especially to laymen. At no stage do they explain the uncertainty principle; the reason why the electron behaved differently.
Task5003 1 month ago
HOLY SLIT! :O
ktmsolti 1 month ago 8
I now fully understand the meaning of the term, "mind-fucked".
GorgonDrageil 1 month ago
This is the only piece of information in "What The Bleep Do We Know!?: Down The Rabbit Hole" that isn't complete bullshit. Although I would like them to stress that 'observing' has nothing to do with looking at it, it means interacting with in any way by anything.
carlsaischa 1 month ago
Feign that is not looking!
derciorj21 1 month ago
I'm amused. And I thought physics had the answers to the Universe, smh. Guise, get ready for the surprise of your lives.
Sentinith 1 month ago
I clicked on this by accident but I noticed that he swore with his fingers twice for the short time I watched it
xxistoleurcookiexx 1 month ago
@xxistoleurcookiexx Yes, but in America that isn't swearing. I think only in Britain are two fingers an insult.
ojideagu 1 month ago
Doesn't "observing" an electron simply "consume" it? I mean the very fact that the measuring device records a blip is because the electron went into it, bumped onto a ccd or whatever to signal its presence. If it went into the ccd it didn't go past the slit. No mystery.
isreasontaboo 1 month ago
HOLLLYYYY SHIIIIITTTTT
akwilkerson 1 month ago
Owh god, Finally i find this to study my physics. Searching for this experiment this whole afternoon but No one explain well! Thanks. :D
blackgie 1 month ago
@KeshnerfFilms no
xPray2die2dayx 1 month ago
DOES DIS MEAN GOD NO XIST? :<
KeshnerfFilms 1 month ago
@Mick0722MX Ah, but is not "reliability" a subjective denomination?
And I do not claim based on these experiments, by the way, that subjectivity is inherently human or animal. It may be a property of any sufficiently organized system.
Janotheknight 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Janotheknight "Ah, but is not "reliability" a subjective denomination?"
I don't think so. Shine a light on a banana, we will perceive yellow subjectively, however, the light reflecting from the molecules of the banana are an objective wavelength.
Mick0722MX 1 month ago
The electron (also photons) travels along helical path (spiring-like) not straight line producing a 3D WAVE . Depending on the extact phase shift when the 3D wave enters either of the slids, it gets defracted at different angles thus producing the multi-bands (even if one at a time).
To prove Helical 3D Waves [heliwaveCOM] we should find if the middle band in the single slit exp is not brighter than the central band in the double slit exp. The single slit defracting too but no interference.
pureprimes 1 month ago
Finicky things, those electrons.
:S
Iviker 1 month ago
Tsssss....this guys so into quantum, he should take a leap or sumpthin ......
carlosZ1981 1 month ago
@carlosZ1981 lol a chip in the randomest of places
symbal777 1 month ago
I could totally see rockstar games parodying this.
thest0rmyblu 1 month ago
Hmm. They used a laser as observer, maybe the laser somehow interfered with the particle? And how did they manage to shoot single electrons?
RaiBok 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@RaiBok But they actually put polarizer filters in the slits so there was no way they could interfere with the electrons before they hit the slits. But there is truth in what you say because mere act of observing actually interferes with superpositioning which means electrons being in BOTH of the slits and forces it to make a choice (i know this is not the appropriate verb though :). In one of the interpretations of this events it is proposed that two superpositioned waves collapse into one.
egekhan 1 month ago
@egekhan okay, thanks for clearing that up. :)
RaiBok 1 month ago
For laymen, quantum = mindfuck
lonesoldier33 1 month ago
only part of the documentary that isn't fucking bullshit.
009SoundVEVO 1 month ago
@009SoundVEVO Yeah, it goes on to say something in the lines of "you're the observer, so basically you can affect quantum processes, so you can be God and change the laws of physics IF YOU ONLY BELIEVE! YOU'VE GOT TO BELIEVE!"
That was a bummer.
batukhan 1 month ago
Dayum, that's a good physics video!
TheReverendlove 1 month ago
for the love of satan anyone who likes physics do NOT buy into this bullshit interpretation. this entire documentary is riddled with flaws and totally erroneous.
GiantDoucheNG 1 month ago
@GiantDoucheNG Hell my dear sir, physics is all about finding the new, discovering possibilities and making ten questions from one answer. As your name suggests you are just a Giantdouche. No you know anything about physics. Its rules are made to be broken. And the 'flaws', I dare you to figure them out. Go on. Im sure some one with the knowledge of a bicycle pump could 'easily' challenge people with degrees that spend the life working on these projects. Finally, how dare you call this bullshit.
TheMimileigh 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheMimileigh Wow. There appears to be a complete miscommunication here. Unless you're honestly trying to troll me I have no alternative other than to conclude you are either severely misinformed in this field or just idiotic. This is not what the double slit experiment means. The observer effect simply means that in the process of collecting information about electron spin and position the actual method of observation effects the data. You don't change particles by looking at them
GiantDoucheNG 1 month ago
@TheMimileigh Also this documentary is notable for being HEAVILY sensationalized. If you are interested, find this movie's Wikipedia article and read the subheading "Academic reaction." Richard Dawkins and James Randi agreed that it was "tosh" and a "fantasy docudrama." This is absolutely bullshit and a complete slap in the face to theoretical physicists.
GiantDoucheNG 1 month ago
@GiantDoucheNG I believe that it is saying that the observer greatly changes the outcome and that particles are not just existant, they are aware of there surroundings. Electrons are sentient beings.
TheMimileigh 1 month ago